The most important issue to confront the next President of the United
States has yet to be addressed in a meaningful way by any candidate. The
Millennium Assembly and Summit, scheduled for next September at the United
Nations in New York, is designed to establish global governance. While
there has been an abundance of discussion about global governance in U.N.
literature over the last five years, there has been virtually no discussion
in the media, and less in domestic political circles. Only a few candidates
have even referred to the United Nations in political speeches, and their
references indicate little understanding of the United Nations system.

Al Gore understands thoroughly the meaning of global governance, and
is, in fact, a strong advocate. It is to his advantage to say as little
as possible about it, so he says nothing. Most other candidates seem to
say what they think their constituents want to hear. None are discussing
the real issues related to global governance, or the appropriate role
of the United Nations in the next century.

Pat Buchanan said he would see that the U.N. vacated its facilities should
the U.S. lose its vote in the General Assembly. Surely he knows that the
U.N. owns both the land, compliments of a Rockefeller gift, and its facility.
It would take more than a Buchanan decree to evict the U.N.

George W. Bush said he would never place U.S. troops under U.N. command,
but quickly added that the U.N. "can help" in weapons inspections
and peacekeeping. More telling is his commitment to pay U.N. dues, "but
only if the U.N.'s bureaucracy is reformed, and our disproportionate share
of its costs is reduced."

The cost of U.N. participation is not the issue. Nor is corrupt, inefficient
bureaucracy the issue. What George and all other candidates should focus
on is the restructuring at the U.N. that is going on now under the guise
of reform.

Treaty by treaty, and resolution by resolution, the United States is
surrendering chunks of its national sovereignty to the United Nations
system.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) must not be equated with "free
trade." Bush says he is a free trader, and supports China's admission
to the WTO. Participation in the WTO means simply that a nation may trade
with other member nations according to the rules set by the U.N. Participation
means that each nation will accept the dispute resolution decided by a
U.N. committee. Member nations relinquish their sovereign authority to
respond to unfair trade practices unilaterally - and agree to accept the
sovereign authority of the U.N.

The World Heritage Treaty surrenders a little more national sovereignty
by agreeing to manage U.N. designated land according to management practices
dictated by the U.N.

The Man and the Biosphere agreement with UNESCO surrenders more national
sovereignty by adding 47 U.N. designated Biosphere Reserves to the land
managed according to U.N. dictates.

Congress, not the U.N., has the Constitutional authority to manage federal
lands, and private property owners have the Constitutional authority to
manage private lands. The sovereign authority of America and of Americans
is being usurped by this emerging new authority at the U.N.

The Kyoto Protocol strengthens the U.N. even more by giving the U.N.
the authority to regulate the use of fossil fuel energy in developed countries.
Then there are the human rights treaties and the weapons treaties, and
dozens of environmental treaties and agreements, all designed to put the
U.N. in the position of enforcing the agreements which regulate the behavior
of the participants.

There is nothing wrong with agreements and treaties between or among
nations. What is wrong, is giving the U.N. the power to enforce them.
The U.N. should be nothing more than the forum where the agreements are
struck; enforcement must be reserved to the parties. Transferring enforcement
authority to the U.N., as has been done with the WTO, creates a supranational
governmental authority which is defacto world government.

Were this supranational authority the consequential result of a single
treaty, the world could survive. It is not. It is a part of a well conceived,
expertly executed plan which has been unfolding over several years to
encircle every facet of human life under rules dictated by the United
Nations.

This long range plan is reaching a critical stage with the Millennium
Assembly and Summit next year. The largest gathering of heads of state
in the history of the world will consider and adopt the principles of
global governance which will guide the U.N. into the next century. Those
principles include:

global taxation by the U.N.;

a standing U.N. army;

control and regulation of all firearms;

regulation of multinational corporations and financial institutions;

elimination of veto power and permanent member status;

control and regulation of the global commons (which is the environment);

and six more equally egregious principles set forth in the Charter for
Global Democracy.

These are the issues political candidates should address. The next President
will appoint the U.N. representatives who will either support or oppose
these principles. Voters need to know  before the election 
how the candidates feel about transferring this power to the U.N. After
the election, it's too late.

Al Gore has demonstrated his strong support for these principles and
has been personally responsible for advancing U.N. authority substantially
during his term in the White House. Should he be the next President, these
policies would not likely change.

Buchanan has spoken frankly of his concerns about the U.N., and has been
branded as an "isolationist" for his efforts.

Most candidates, if not most Americans, still have hope that the U.N.
can promote world peace, if it is adequately reformed. And so it might,
if adequately reformed. But the reform now under way is misdirected. Americans
are looking for reforms that produce economies and efficiency; the U.N.
is looking for reforms that result in increased power to enforce U.N.
policies.

Neither candidates nor Americans have examined U.N. reforms sufficiently.
The U.N. needs less power, not more. The U.N. can be controlled only by
limiting its money supply, not by giving it an independent source of money
through the power of global taxation.

The value of the U.N., if any remains, lies in the process, not in the
product. When people of differing views meet face to face and engage in
protracted discussions, the countries they represent are less likely to
drop bombs on one another, if those nations eventually reach agreement.

When people of differing views meet to engage in discussions that produce
a "consensus" declared by a U.N. bureaucrat, which gives the
U.N. the power to enforce the policy whether genuinely agreed or not,
eventually bombs are quite likely.

The products coming out of U.N. negotiations since 1992, all tend to
give the U.N. enforcement authority, and all tend to be policies developed,
not by the delegates, but by NGOs such as the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Global governance is a system of centralized policy development by so-called
experts, rather than by elected representatives, enforced by a centralized
enforcement mechanism, funded by a centrally controlled taxing authority.

Global governance is accountable to no one. Once empowered and funded,
global governance cannot be challenged until it, like the former Soviet
Union, collapses upon itself. That will be several generations into the
next millennium. Who will be left to remember sweet freedom, or how to
construct it?